Tuesday, June 04, 2013

When the
Gang Bill issues are presented in the context of jobs and
unemployment, the state's voters overwhelmingly reject the solutions
of the Gang Bill.

A
significant minority of Utah voters feel at least some moral
responsibility toward helping families that have a member who is in
the country illegally. But four of five Utah voters feel at
least some moral responsibiltiy to protect American workers from
having to compete with foreign workers.

Utah
voters disagree 68% to 24% that we need more immigrant
workers. The central aspect of the Senate bill is that it
triples the number of work permits for foreign citizens in the first
10 years.

By
63% to 26%, they think full enforcement should come before
consideration of work permits. The Senate Judiciary
Committee repeatedly voted down amendments to put enforcement
first in the bill.

General
Attitudes: The
attitude toward the general scope of the Gang Bill as found in this
poll may seem quite different from many media polls which have found
substantial (although recently slipping) public support. The
key reason for the differences is likely found in the fact that the
media polls focus on "legalizing" or "normalizing"
the status of the illegal population while including some
punitive-sounding language, and often with the only alternative
offered being mass deportation; those polls rarely if ever mention
immigration as having any relationship to employment issues or as
involving work permits. And the media polls tend not to reflect
the key principle of the Gang Bill that the U.S. needs a lot more
immigrant workers.

This
poll uses neutral language throughout and attempts to offer clear and
simple questions and choices. But it does present the choices
on immigration in the context of the current unemployment situation,
which is the way the public will hear the debate as it heats up
toward a Senate floor vote -- and the way some candidates in the next
election may frame the votes. The key Senate spokesmen against
the bill are focusing on the unemployment context in their public
statements. This poll is especially helpful in measuring how
the public is likely to hear arguments against the bill based on jobs
issues.

===================

ONLY
26% SUPPORT GIVING WORK PERMITS BEFORE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF BORDER
AND WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT

Many
Senators who are on the fence may want to express some openness
toward legalizing some illegal immigrants but will vote against the
bill if they find it doesn't do enough to ensure that a large illegal
population can't form here again and if the amnesty includes too
broad of a group of current illegal aliens.

Question
11 gives people a choice of doing it the Gang Bill way, which is
giving out work permits at the beginning and then implementing border
and workplace enforcement over the next 10 years. There are many
reasons to doubt that the language of the bill guarantees
full enforcement even at the end of 10 years; but worded as if
the enforcement will happen, the question found 63% of
the state's voters oppose the bill's sequence of work permits first
and enforcement later, with 26% supporting it.

The
63% of state voters in this poll wanting full implementation before
"considering" giving work permits is in line with a
late-April poll by Fox News which has been notorious the last
few months for polls worded in a way to show support for an amnesty.
But this Fox poll also found 68% nationally wanted border security
measures to be completed before changes to immigration policies

We
believe the central issue of the Gang Bill is that it would give out
33 million lifetime work permits to both illegal and legal immigrants
over the first decade alone. That number, however, is not in the
poll.

But
Question 3 asks about the much lower figure of 7 million work permits
to illegal immigrant workers.

While
the media and many politicians focus on the requirements for getting
on the "path to citizenship," the amnesty begins
almost immediately after passage of the bill with the issuance of
work permits.

The
passion among voters is 2.5-to--1 opposed to those work permits
(35% strongly opposed vs. 14% strongly supporting).

All
national polling finds that the No. 1 concern of voters is about
putting Americans back to work
in a stronger economy. The results of this poll are a
strong sign that the voters
of this state don't find giving work permits to illegal aliens (the
central action in the Gang Bill) to be compatible with the highest
interest of the public in putting Americans back to work.

Question
4 asks those supporting work permits to choose how many of the
illegal immigrants whould get the permits. Only 17% of the
pro-permits voters chose the "nearly all" contained in the
bill. And about a third of the pro-permit voters would give the
work permits to only "some" of the illegal immigrants.

These
poll responses indicate that a Senator would have a huge public
backing for rejecting the Gang Bill merely for giving out the work
permits too broadly and before the full -- or any -- implementation
of enforcement to stop illegal immigration in the future.

===============================

THE
CENTRAL REASON FOR MUCH OF THE BILL -- A SUPPOSED NEED FOR MORE
FOREIGN WORKERS TO COMBAT LABOR SHORTAGES -- IS REPUGNANT TO THE
STATE'S VOTERS

The
numbers of lifetime work permits in the first decade after the bill
are staggering, although this poll did not inform the respondents of
the 33 million figure. Several of the proponents of the Gang
Bill justify the increases by saying that the U.S. is suffering from
various shortages of workers in high skills and in low skills like
construction, hospitality, service, etc. Many of them claim
that low-skilled and less-educated foreign workers don't compete for
the same occupations as the 10 million less-educated Americans who
want a full-time job but can't find one.

This
poll suggests that a politician making those arguments in this state
would be driving voters away.

By
68% to 22%, the state's voters believe that less-educated illegal
immigrants compete with less-educated Americans for jobs.

Only
24% of the voters think there are labor shortages that need the
solution of more immigrant workers.

And
only 13% of the state's voters think the 1 million green cards given
out to new legal immigrants each year is too low.

The
first decade after the Gang Bill would see 33 million lifetime work
permits which is:

3
times higher than number of work permits per decade since 1990

10
times higher than the number per decade in the 1950s, 1960s and
1970s.

Any
politican trying to defend such massive increases in foreign workers
during this time of high unemployment would be met by disbelief, if
not anger, from the voters.

===========================

NOT
MUCH SYMPATHY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS

Only
13% of the state's voters feel "a lot" of moral
responsibility to "help protect the ability of current illegal
immigrants to hold a job and support their families without fear of
deportation." And 29% feel "some" moral
responsibility.

However,
when the needs of the foreign citizens who are here illegally are
stacked against the needs of members of their own national community,
the state's voters clearly think the priority is American workers.

79%
of voters say Congress has "a lot" or "some"
moral responsibility to "help protect unemployed or low-wage
Americans from having to compete with foreign workers for U.S. jobs.

The petition is doing rather well, BUT it appears the time may be
running shorter than had been anticipated. S.744 (amnesty) will
reportedly be introduced Thursday and voted for the first time on
Monday.

That should be a cloture vote requiring 60 yea votes. This will
allow amendments, floor discussions, etc. After the amendments,
the bill could be passed with a majority vote. So, this Monday
vote could be critical - if it does NOT get 60, it will be much
harder to finally pass.

Reports
are that Sen McConnell may not invoke cloture, meaning only a
majority would be required to continue debate. However, ANY
Senator may object - requiring 60.

Sen. Hatch is still straddling the fence and could vote for amnesty, before he votes against (which could allow passage) Sen. Lee
seems to be sticking to his principles and NOT supporting 744.

Therefore, we need MORE action, call, visit and/or email his
office, email, call or coerce your friends and relatives to sign
the petition. It does appear that some on this list have NOT taken
the opportunity to do so. You certainly don't want to say, in a
month or so, when this monstrosity comes up for a vote that, "Gee, I
wish I had done more."
Sen.
Hatch's state office:

The
bill also proposes legalization of an estimated 11 million
unauthorized aliens who have broken various laws in living
and
working in this country, S.744 would also, by default,
grant amnesty
to an untold number of employers for their law violations
in hiring,
aiding and abetting these unauthorized aliens. 8USC1324

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Happy Independence Day! A day for reflection on Freedom - and
Security - and the Rule of Law - an Illegal immigration (and noticing my personal failure to post anything of the recent events of Supreme Court decision on AZ immigration law and executive Obamnesty)

This, however caught my attention at the local level (Utah) of the continuing effort loosely based on the "Utah Compact" toward "legalizing the illegals."

The Utah Commission on Immigration, in their recent meeting presented (but did not vote) this proposal, apparently in preparation for presenting a report:

"Proposed Policy
Language:

1)Any
research
or findings the Commission reviews shall be factually
based and
verifiable. The Commission will focus on data that
comes from academic
sources and quantifiable research.

2)As the
Commission “develop[s] a comprehensive plan to address
immigration, use
of migrant workers and integration of immigrants in Utah,”
the Commission’s recommendations and findings shall be
based on the impact
of any comprehensive plan to Utah’s
economy, legal system, law enforcement efforts, and
educational system.

Note: This language is for formal
vote to establish
guiding principles to help delineate boundaries for
future Commission discussions,
findings and recommendations to the Legislature. This
language should
help prevent the Commission from being pulled in too
many directions which will
detract from the Commission’s ability to make positive
recommendations
and fulfill the intent of the legislature. A set of
broad-based and
consensus driven principles will help us focus our
attention and increase our
value to legislators."

Obviously, basing findings on verifiable facts is an admirable
goal. However, not all "facts" come from academic sources or are
quantifiable: Chis Herrod's book "the Forgotton Immigrant" has a
great deal of quantifiable research and could be used as a source.
Limiting "facts" to academia, would presumably preclude
NumbersUSA, CIS, FAIR - as well as the Sutherland Institute.

"Social Issues" in and of themselves tend not to quantifiable.
The more important issue is the idea that the Commission is making
"recommendations and
findings shall be based on the impact
of any comprehensive plan to Utah’s
economy, legal system, law enforcement efforts, and
educational system."

That, I believe, is far beyond the scope of their charter as any
"comprehensive plan" should concern only the Migrant Worker Visa
Pilot Program and NOT the full consideration to the problem and
plight of illegal aliens, which is generally where comprehensive
plans tend to lead. IMO, the biggest job, at this point, may be to
try to keep the Commission focused on its primary functions.

Why is this commission creating a comprehensive plan to Utah's . . .
education system? Does the proposed Migrant Worker plan include families? Should it?
- That might be a valid subject for discussion, then a plan might be
needed - such as the employer would be responsible for the payment
thereof.

Is the Migrant Worker going to be a permanent resident, on the path
to citizenship? My understanding is that it would be a temporary
visa for a limited time for a specific job. Is this being
discussed?

How about the eligibility of current illegal residents in Utah, is
THAT being discussed?

In short is the Commission focusing on the Pilot worker visa plan or
comprehensive immigration reform and "amnesty." Have they lost the
focus on the set goal or refocused efforts on legalization of the
illegal?

It might be very helpful to review the committee and floor
discussions to better determine the sense of the legislature.

As you may recall, the Commission was created by HB 466 in 2011
which was created for: "19 . providing for the creation of the Migrant Worker Visa
Pilot Program;
20 . requiring monitoring of the pilot program and reporting on
information gained;
21 and
22 . providing for implementation of similar migrant worker visa
pilot programs."
The function basically are:

(1) A study of current state and federal immigration law.

(2) The ONLY function as far as
illegal immigration is to study its IMPACT on Utah:

"(1) The commission shall:
149 (a) conduct a thorough review of the economic, legal,
cultural, and educational impact
150 of illegal immigration on the state and its political
subdivisions;"

(3) The function pertaining to MIGRANT
workers is limited to the Nuevo Leon Pilot project and
developing a possible plan from it.

"(c) develop a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state
plan to address:

154 (i) immigration and the use of migrant workers in the state;

171 (f) comply with Part 3, Migrant Worker Visa Pilot Project."

The function is NOT to create a guest worker program, (aka
HB116), nor is it to legalize the current illegal aliens in Utah.
Further, I think it was NOT within these defined function to
suggest to the 2012 legislature that no 'immigration' bills should
be considered.

I would also point out that:
180
(3) (a) In performing its powers and duties, the
commission may invite testimony from
181
the governor, legislators, state agencies, and members of
the public.
AND (c) The commission may hold one or more public hearings
that it considers advisable
186
and in locations within the state that it chooses to afford
interested persons an opportunity to
187
appear and present views with respect to any subject relating
to the commission's powers and
188
duties under this section.

There was, of course, no comment about the illegality of her employment, merely that she had a Social Security issued before she overstayed her student visa. She says, "You have to pay taxes," "That's the way that you know that you have for sure some kind of security."

Two questions, how much taxes might she have paid? What type of security is she concerned with? One could assume FICA taxes for Social Security retirement. (Though that payment possibly won't provide any benefit)

How about Income Tax? In a quick analysis with an online Income tax calculator (TTax), it shows a
divorced illegal alien declaring a $30,000 income with three dependents a standard deduction and without any tax withheld would receive a REFUND of $5,270 for federal income taxes!!! That's a fairly good incentive to file. (With a $40,000 income she only gets a refund of $1,936, at $25K the refund goes to $6,825)

The article refers to them as "invisible taxpayers" - but, they may very well be paying an "invisible" tax!!

Worried about
legality of dependents? The site declares "The person MUST BE a U.S.
citizen, resident, national, a resident of Canada or Mexico . . ."

However,
just to be fair TTax says the illegal alien filer would be responsible to pay
$466 to the state of Utah - which would not quite cover the $18,000 for educating
the three dependents.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

"One of Park City’s largest employers, the Stein Eriksen Lodge, recently
lost about 10 percent of its workforce of more than 580 after a federal
audit found those employees were ineligible to work in the United
States."

AFTER the audit, they begin to use E-verify, which has been required in Utah for a couple of years now.

The Deer Valley Resort where the lodge is located uses E-verify. Two other large Park City hotels St. Regis and Marriott use E-verify, why not Stein Eriksen Lodge? Could it be because there is no penalty for not doing so and cheap labors might increase the profit margin?

For other E-verify users in Utah, check the list here. www.ufire.net

Where have all Utah jobs gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the teen jobs gone?
Long time ago
Where have all workers gone?
Illegals took them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The last attempt to pass an illegal immigration law in this legislative session appears to have killed any hope of anything being passed to protect Utahns in lawful employment and other costs and problems associated with illegal aliens.

From the official journal:

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (27 Feb Journal)
Representative Herrod made a motion, under suspension of the rules, to lift H.B.
300 from the Rules Committee and refer it to the Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice standing committee. Representatives Draxler and Harper commented.

Herrod: We should not be afraid to tackle tough issues.Draxler: against motion - survey ranked immigration - highest
points were the facets of guest-worker HB116, it's a mistake to lift bill at
this time of the session (HB 300 was introduced 27 Jan) Harper: proper motion, but against motion - failed in rules with other
immigration bills, part of process; if we do this, what other bills
will we have to hear (11:20) "what other games might be played?"
shouldn't be done this late in this session (It's been sitting in rules for two weeks)Dougall: Motion to "saunter' (12:05)Herrod: I warn this body about process; the legislature has lost the faith of
Utahns; Have you on rules even read the bill?: We have high unemployment for
teenagers, high suicide rate; 21% of rape of child are by illegal aliens,
murder rate up; but we won't even hear a bill that is constitutional
(HB300) Lincoln quote “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”, don't use a
ploy to saunter to stay away of voteDougall: This is not a motion of cowardice He
(Herrod) issues a tirade day after day, very bitter about many
things, we need to cool down.

Chair: Voice vote - passed division = vote:
Comments by chair of what are we voting on - not on bill, but to
saunter.
pause (long) 16:45 17:42 Mel Brown: Point of order, need recess or adjourn- not to
saunter, motion not debatable. 18.22 motion is to recess for 15 min.

Representative Dougall made a substitute motion to recess for 15 minutes.
Representative Herrod commented.
The motion to recess for 15 minutes passed on the following roll call:
Yeas, 40; Nays, 31; Absent or not voting, 4.

Monday, September 12, 2011

The Grand America Hotel is an excellent example of the need for Everify and the protection it can afford both businesses AND employees.

Utah Law requires all businesses, with over 15 Employees, to use Everify and both federal and state law prohibit the hiring of “unauthorized aliens.” Regrettably, no penalties were attached for noncompliance in Utah, but its use might have provided some escape from punishment if it had been used.

The Deseret News report stated “DHS determined that some hotel employees did not have valid documentation to work in the United States even though they had presented facially valid documents when they were hired.”

No further explanation was given, but it is well known the the State of Utah issued Driver's License to illegal aliens for several years before changing “Driver Privilege Cards." Both documents might be considered "facially valid documents" as they are official Utah Photo "identification" cards, which are not supposed to be used for identification.

Apparently, the Hotel may have been using the I-9 form which requires NO verification by the employer when hiring. The Tribune article reports that "The documentation of all new
hires is checked against federal databases under the E-Verify system." The Grand America Hotel was not found on UFIRE's DHS provided Utah E-Verify users databases

through June 2011. The use of E-Verify in Utah was mandated beginning July 2010

A later database showed they finally signed up for E-Verify in July around the time of a controversial protest over "the Grand America Hotel’s
attack on immigrants."

According to this article "The Grand America Hotel bosses
set a July 6 deadline for all of the employees. The bosses require
that all workers reapply and either show the necessary documentation
or face immediate termination. However, the bosses extended this
deadline one month, to Aug. 6 in order to ensure staffing at the
Governors’ Conference."

Utah Valley University Revolutionary Students Union said,
“Defending workers, especially those who are immigrants is a top
priority. Grand America is
attacking the right to receive a living wage and enforcing racist
systems of verification. An attack on one worker is an attack on all
of us.”

After the DHS audit, a total of over 100 undocumented employees lost their jobs because of lack of proof of legal status. Nothing has been reporting concerning replacements, but as of the end of July there were 41,290 unemployed people in Salt Lake County.

Although the Hotel association reported a $12 wage for the hotel jobs, Workforces Services has several listed a $8.25/hr.

Grand America Hotel is a GOLD member of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce which was the primary proponent of the Utah Guest Worker Permit (HB 116) which attempts to “legalize the illegal” or in their words

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Anyone following the Utah media should recognize the bias toward illegal aliens, guest workers, HB116, etc. Here's a more subtle one in the SL Trib, you may have missed, which reported "Utah’s independent voters are cooling to the state’s tea party movement, with support dropping by more than half over the last several months, according to a newly released (BYU) poll."

Reporting on a few answers, the article failed to report the main points of the 25 questions in the April Utah Voter Poll by BYU's Center for the Study of Election and Democracy:

62% disapprove of how the Utah State Legislature is handling its job

only 12% believe "illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay permanently in the U.S."

17% wanted illegal aliens "to go home immediately"

40% allowed 'most' to stay as temporary workers.

58% support the AZ enforcement bill

79% supported Sandstrom's HB 497 enforcement bill

63% supported HB 469 (sponsoring immigrants)

45% "did not know" the LDS church's stand on any of the 'immigration' bills

84% wanted the GRAMA bill repealed

respondents were 39% GOP, 13% Dem and 42% "independent"

61% conservative, 24% liberal

96% had attended college

Huntsman and Romney got the most favorable rating at 63%

The current Congressmen form Utah were all about 50%

But the Trib decided the important item was the Tea Party. The response actually was 48% of voters thought favorably of the tea party.

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

It appears that an employer CAN be held liable for the crime of an Illegal Alien Employee.

Here is a case: HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - The family of slain Huntsville police officer Daniel Howard Golden was awarded $37.5 million in punitive damages Tuesday by a Huntsville jury. Golden's family had sued his convicted killer, Benito Ocampo Albarran along with the El Jalisco Mexican restaurant where Albarran worked. The jury awarded the Golden family $25 million from Albarran and $12.5 million from the restaurant.

Golden was killed in 2005 after answering a domestic dispute call at the restaurant in Northwest Huntsville. According to evidence and testimony from Albarran's murder trial, he shot Golden twice in the head, killing him. Court records indicate Albarran was intoxicated at the time of the shooting. He was sentenced to death for the crime in 2008.Click here for an extensive paper on the subject:
Excerpt: "The amended RICO definitions added a violation of section 274 of the INA.codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1324.to the list of prohibited conduct qualifying as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Under the expanded definitions, .racketeering activity. for purposes of a civil RICO suit includes .any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens). This section bears the title Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. and appears targeted at people that smuggle or conceal aliens in the United States. In contrast, section 274A is entitled Unlawful employment of aliens and qualifies several prohibitions on employment of illegal aliens in the United States. The amendments opened the door for the use of federal racketeering law against companies that knowingly violate the INA. Although relatively obscure, the amended definitions did not go unnoticed for long."